Hmmm, sounds like a noodly monster rationale to me.
I wouldn't use the graph in class until it is more straight-forward
(i.e., presented as negative slope) in fear that it would further
confuse students who are just learning these concepts... although I
think it's a cute example.
-S
On
... and computers (i.e., software, music piracy).
MR
At 09:34 AM 9/27/2005 -0400, you wrote:
I appreciate the humor, of course, but I think students need to be made
aware (and many of mine wouldn't normally be, I don't think) that piracy
is a serious problem across the globe still... even
Steven Specht wrote:
I appreciate the humor, of course, but I think students need to be
made aware (and many of mine wouldn't normally be, I don't think) that
piracy is a serious problem across the globe still... even without the
swords and eye-patches. Now they use automatic weapons and
Chris,
I was hoping the Arrr would indicate to folks that I was trying not
to be too serious about it. However, I do take seriously my role in the
classroom as teaching awareness of the world to my students, including
outside of psychology.
Argh,
-S
On Sep 27, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Christopher
Quoting Steven Specht [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I wouldn't use the graph in class until it is more straight-forward
(i.e., presented as negative slope) in fear that it would further
confuse students who are just learning these concepts...
Yes, that is exactly why I used it as an example of illusory
On 26 Sep 2005 at 17:47, Christopher D. Green wrote:
For those of you looking for an excellent classroom example of how
correlation doesn't imply causation, see the graph at
http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg which shows the
inverse relationship between global warning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Admittedly, this is a parody, but if it's used, students might be cautioned not to emulate the decidely strange scale on the abscissa.
I refer you to:http://www.venganza.org/faq.htm#f7
All Hail His Noodly Touch!
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York
Note that the correlation is negative but they have purposefully, I believe,
drawn it as a positive linear relationship.
I used this one in class this semester to talk about spurious correlation.
Annette
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 26 Sep 2005 at 17:47, Christopher D. Green wrote:
For
Perhaps I have missed it, but I would like to know the source for the
data that tell us how many pirates there have been per year. My
intuitive sense tells me that the number of pirates has been increasing
over the last 3 decades. How have pirates been defined? How has their
number been
Bill Scott wrote:
Perhaps I have missed it, but I would like to know the source for the
data that tell us how many pirates there have been per year. My
intuitive sense tells me that the number of pirates has been
increasing over the last 3 decades. How have pirates been defined? How
has
Exactly, I think they purposefully used such a perversion of the normal way to
identify changes in variables to go along with the parody-theme of poor use of
science-related functions masquerading as science.
Annette (who should be over quota for today)
Quoting Christopher D. Green [EMAIL
One of my favorites is the negative correlation between socioeconomic
status and diagnosis with mental illness, with the conclusion that being
poor causes mental illness. Or, better yet, that the correlation is
evidence of discrimination against the poor (i.e., it is easier to put
them in a
and GPA. Sorry for the lack of references, but I'm out of
town this week.
-Don.
- Original Message -
From: Jim Dougan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, September 19, 2005 9:21 am
Subject: Re: Correlation and Causation
One of my favorites is the negative correlation between
socioeconomic
Keith Stanovich's book, How To
Think Straight About Psychology has some
good ones, including the correlation
between reading problems and
erratic eye movements during reading.
There is a causal link here, but the
opposite that was originally presumed.
It was originally interpreted
as suggesting
Jim Dougan wrote:
One of my favorites is the negative correlation between socioeconomic
status and diagnosis with mental illness, with the conclusion that being
poor causes mental illness. Or, better yet, that the correlation is
evidence of discrimination against the poor (i.e., it is
Jeff Bartel wrote:
What I'm wondering, though, is what psychology examples you use
to illustrate that correlation between two variables does not
necessarily mean that the variables are causally related (or better,
that experimental research demonstrated to be unrelated).
This is just off
I probably mentioned this before, but I have collected a large number of correlational and causal claims in the media on the following page:
http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/100/correlation_or_causation.htm
The text of the links capture the headlines of these popular press articles.
I also see this problem with my students when discussing third
variables. My students typically just think of a variable that is
related to one but not both of the key variables. So if the question
is: do the wearing of bras cause breast cancer. When asking for 3rd
variables a student might
Hume established that causation is only a
correlation. A cause is inferred by people when the correlation is highly
predictive of future relationships. All measurements are relative and
therefore an association. We use experiments to force our brain to
logically infer a cause and effect
Hume's view of causation was
hardly the last word in the topic. While it is true the statistical
procedures psychologists' typically use to "establish" causal llinks
are based essentially on a Humean view of the topic, that speaks more
to the antiquity of psychologists' philosophical
: Christopher D. Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 3/6/2004 11:09 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Cc:
Subject: Re: Correlation vs Causation
winmail.dat---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Jean-Marc Perreault wrote:
I've highlighted the passage that makes me wonder: Am I mistaken in
wondering how a Pearson Correlation lead the researchers to conclude
about a causal effect? Even browsing through the article itself, there
is no mention (that I caught
-Original Message-
From: jim clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 2:20 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: Re: Correlation vs Causation
Hi
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Jean-Marc Perreault wrote:
I've highlighted the passage that makes me
in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: RE: Correlation vs Causation
-Original Message-
From: jim clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 2:20 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: Re: Correlation vs Causation
Hi
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004
Quoting jim clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My guess is that here direct
effect is referring not to direct causal effect but more to
direct statistical effect (i.e., relationship) as opposed to a
relationship mediated by some other predictor included in the
study. They appear to have used
25 matches
Mail list logo
